John McNesby is right about something

I mostly reference John McNesby when the FOP president is defending abuses or criminal activity by Philadelphia cops, so I should mention that I think he's right to file a grievance against City Hall for the "deplorable" facilities that many officers are working in:

Fleas are far from the only issue within the facilities, McNesby said. Cells in the 15th District station, at Harbison Avenue and Levick Street, have been closed since July because of a bedbug infestation, he said. That station and those in other districts often flood and leak when it rains, he added, and some are riddled with asbestos, lack sufficient plumbing and have heating and cooling systems that don't work.

 The city's obviously had its share of budget problems in recent years, but the kinds of problems described here don't happen overnight: They're the result of years and years of deferred maintenance and upgrades. Never a good idea, but all-too-typical of short-sighted municipal budgeting.

Max Boot cries wolf, Taiwan edition

Max Boot:

The Osama bin Laden raid notwithstanding, the Obama administration continues to project an air of weakness and irresolution on national security that will come back to haunt us. The latest example is its refusal to sell F-16s to our democratic ally Taiwan.

Taiwan is facing a growing imbalance of cross-Straits power as China continues to increase its defense budget by double-digit figures every year. This buildup is tilting the odds against the U.S. Navy in the western Pacific and making it increasingly likely Taiwan would be on its own in any crisis. That makes it all the more imperative Taiwan have the ability to defend itself.

Say, here is the challenge the U.S. Navy faces:

The Chinese navy's first aircraft carrier has begun its sea trials, the state-run Xinhua news agency has said.

The BBC's Michael Bristow in Beijing says China is years away from being able to deploy this carrier as a potent military tool. Even so, the country's neighbours will be worried.

I'd say the United States Navy is still in good shape. Despite the fact that we spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, Max Boot would have you believe were always on the verge of losing our ability to dominate ... other continents that aren't our own.

As far as the F-16s go, NYT points out that the Bush Administration wouldn't sell them either:

“The notion that is being bandied about that this a capitulation to China, given the unprecedented magnitude of sales in the first two and a half years of the administration, and that F-16’s were never authorized by the Bush administration, suggests that these attacks are partisan rather than security-based,” said Jeffrey A. Bader, a visiting scholar at the Brookings Institution.

Yup.

Andrew Breitbart fantasizes about killing liberals. He is not kidding.

Ever since the Giffords shooting, my conservative friends have been quick to hop on every violent metaphor that comes from the mouth or pen of any reasonably liberal person in America. "So much for the new tone," they harp, because—hey, everybody does it. Right?

 My problem was never with violent metaphors, so much, though I'm not such a fan. My problem was the ideology that suggested that armed rebellion was an appropriate response to tyranny—and a clear consistent message that the Obama Presidency was a tyranny which, perhaps, merited that response. It wasn't the metaphors that bothered me; it was the underlying—though likely idle—threat of actual violence. In this, large swaths of the conservative movement can sometimes be that guy at the end of the bar who threatens to kick your ass and never does. You don't expect trouble, but it wouldn't really surprise you if trouble happened, either.

 All this is prelude to Andrew Breitbart's latest fantasy:

Ranting Weiner fetishist and far-right blog mogul Andrew Breitbart is so tired of "vicious" Twitter leftists and liberals calling him gay—which they do for no reason—that sometimes, during "unclear moments" of addled thinking and high emotions, he thinks about how cool it would be if America had another civil war. Then he might finallyfulfill his promise of taking down America's Left, and also end his own victimization. "Major-named" people in the military has his back on this! 

Breitbart's war fantasy pits Janeane Garofalo, SEIU, and "public sector union thugs" vs. him and America's gun-owning anti-liberals. "They can only win a rhetorical or propaganda war," he told a gathering of Tea Partiers in Boston. "We outnumber them and we have the guns." When the gatherers laugh, he reiterates: "I'm not kidding."

"I'm not kidding."

"I'm not kidding."

"I'm not kidding."

I'd like to think that Breitbart is, you know, actually kidding. But Breitbart isn't nobody in the conservative movement; he's not a fringe figure. And I'm pretty sure my conservative friends aren't going to tut-tut knowingly about the "new tone" this time. They'll keep silent, or offer up a feeble excuse, then jump on the next words said by a union leader. Whatever.

About the 'soft socialism' of Big Defense Spending

Some of my conservative friends have taken issue with my use of the term "soft socialism" to describe how defense spending is used not just for defense purposes, but to prop up the economy and provide jobs. Defense, they point out, is an enumerated power of the government under the Constitution. And so it is! But so is the establishment of post offices. And I doubt very much that my conservative friends would describe that as a capitalist enterprise: Just because the Founders thought of something doesn't mean it was market-oriented. In any case, defense is an enumerated power—but the military we have today, with bases and ships around the world, is also light years away from what the Founders conceived. That never comes up.

Max Boot sounds just like Paul Krugman

Conservative military analyst Max Boot has never met a defense spending cut he likes, but his latest argument against cuts is ... interesting:

The defense secretary estimates trimming $1 trillion from the defense budget during the next decade–as could occur this fall–would add one percent to the unemployment rate. Given that unemployment is now at 9.1 percent, that’s a further hit that our economy simply can’t afford.

Now, Boot doesn't really write or advocate on economics. But it's interesting that his argument here very like Paul Krugman: We shouldn't be cutting big chunks from government right now because that austerity withdraws money from the economy and thus deepens the Great Recession.

But of course, mainstream conservative Republicans—whatever their fiscal rhetoric—have long favored the soft socialism of big defense spending. It's masked because the money goes to private defense contractors, so the guy in Wichita who makes a widget that goes on a helicopter doesn't really see himself as being on the government dole. The idea of using the government to prop up economic demand works when it comes to the defense sector, apparently, but for everybody else it's free markets, Ayn Rand, and gruel.

Muncie, Indiana speaks: Joel Mathis is hardheaded and ignorant!

Muncie's Aldon Veach has written a letter to the editor, objecting to my tone in last week's Scripps Howard column. Veach writes:

I often read the RedBlueAmerica columnists. I don't always disagree with all Joel Mathis writes, but the Sept. 6 article showed his hardheadedness as well as his ignorance. His nasty remarks about the Iowa poll voters was not necessary. The 65 percent who do not believe in evolution are smart enough to know it is not a proven science, but rather a myth that should not be taught in our schools without creationism being taught. The 79 percent he claims don't believe in climate change just don't agree with the theory of Al Gore and the far left that want to cost us taxpayers. The 68 percent who question Obama's birth place are probably right too, if we could get the truth. How unkind of Mathis to call these folks "Know Nothing" voters. We conservatives are not anti-science just because we believe in God, the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We want our nation to survive and go back to the basics. It is the liberals, including our liberal president, who are destroying our blessed country.

Since Veach apparently embraces "birtherism," I'm going to go ahead and stick to my guns on the Republican repudiation of truth and empirical knowledge.

Ford didn't take auto bailout money. But Ford supported the car industry bailout.

Ford's new advertising campaign mocks the car-industry bailout:

What the ad conveniently omits is that Ford supported the bailout for its competitors, and sought access to a multibillion-dollar line of credit guaranteed by the government ... you know, just in case. Here are some excerpts from a "Ford Motor Company Business Plan" (PDF) submitted to the Senate Banking Committee in December 2008.

We are acutely aware that our domestic competitors are, by their own reporting, at risk of running out of cash in a matter of weeks or months. Our industry is an interdependent one. We have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks. Nearly 25 percent of Ford’s top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises. That is why the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would also threaten Ford.

For Ford, the availability of a government line of credit would serve as a critical backstop or safeguard against these conditions as we drive transformational change in our Company. Accordingly, given the significant economic and market risks that exist, Ford respectfully requests that government funding be made available to us, in the form of a “stand-by” line of credit, in the amount of up to $9 billion. This line of credit would be a back-stop to be used only if conditions worsen further and only to the extent needed.

It is in the face of the deepening economic and credit crisis that Ford is asking the Government to make assistance available to the domestic automotive industry even though we have a Plan for our future which, with exception to Department of Energy funding under Section 136, does not assume government assistance. We do so for at least four reasons.

First, we are acutely aware that our supply base, our labor structure, and our dealer network, among other factors, are sized for an industry and a market share that the domestic companies can no longer support. The current crisis has generated considerable debate about the perceived need to restructure our industry in the national interest. As the nation’s oldest automotive company, Ford Motor Company is a vital participant in that debate.

Second, we are aware that our domestic competitors are, by their own reporting, at risk of running out of cash in a matter of weeks or months. Because our industry is an interdependent one, with broad overlap in supplier and dealer networks, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford as well. It is in our own self-interest, as well as the nation’s, to seek support for the industry at a time of great peril to this important manufacturing sector of our economy.

So Ford supported the bailout. It lobbied Congress for the bailout. Why? Because Ford Motor Company wouldn't have survived if the government didn't bail out its competitors!

Now the company is strutting its stuff like it alone embraces free market values—but that's a stance that depends on people forgetting what really happened, and why. And by its own estimate, Ford might not even be around to strut its stuff if the government hadn't intervened. Advertising isn't ever really about the truth, I understand, but this is particularly hypocritical. With this ad, Ford takes advantage of the bailout, twice.